4.3 Article

Strategies to Build Trust and Recruit African American and Latino Community Residents for Health Research: A Cohort Study

期刊

CTS-CLINICAL AND TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCE
卷 8, 期 5, 页码 412-420

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/cts.12273

关键词

Community Partnered Participatory Research; translational science; recruitment; trust; African American; Latino

资金

  1. NIH/National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) UCLA CTSI Grant [UL1TR000124]
  2. USC/UCLA Center of Biodemography [5P30AG017265-13]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundThis study used Community Partnered Participatory Research (CPPR) to address low participation of racial and ethnic minorities in medical research and the lack of trust between underrepresented communities and researchers. MethodsUsing a community and academic partnership in July 2012, residents of a South Los Angeles neighborhood were exposed to research recruitment strategies: referral by word-of-mouth, community agencies, direct marketing, and extant study participants. ResultsAmong 258 community members exposed to recruitment strategies, 79.8% completed the study. Exposed individuals identified their most important method for learning about the study as referral by study participants (39.8%), community agencies (30.6%), word-of-mouth (17.5%), or direct marketing promotion (12.1%). Study completion rates varied by recruitment method: referral by community agencies (88.7%), referral by participants (80.4%), direct marketing promotion (86.2%), word of mouth (64.3%). ConclusionsAlthough African American and Latino communities are often described as difficult to engage in research, we found high levels of research participation and completion when recruitment strategies emerged from the community itself. This suggests recruitment strategies based on CPPR principles represent an important opportunity for addressing health disparities and our high rates of research completion should provide optimism and a road map for next steps.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据